If you could legally purchase a full auto M16/AR-15 type rifle, factory new, for the same price they sell to the government and to law enforcement, plus the background check, 200 dollar transfer tax, etc...would you do it?

For reference, I believe that these new government/LEO machineguns sell for only about a hundred bucks more than the semiauto only version, if that. They're in the same general price range as an AR, that's for sure.

CJ

"Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night."....Thulsa Doom

Where's the option in the poll for buying without ANY TAXES (including the sales tax), and also the option for giving each citizen a fully automatic machine gun of their choice, with a lifetime supply of ammo, so we can protect our nation from terrorists :)

I would have been happy to add the 'no tax' option, but there are only five choices available in a poll. Oh well.

I view full auto as like having a really powerful engine in your car. It doesn't FORCE you to go real fast, but it's nice to stomp on it and let it roar once in a while. White knuckle express!

Hey, here's a great idea we should suggest to the government: Since we're already legally in the unorganized militia anyway, by law, they should allow us to voluntarily join an organized militia as reservists, and issue M16's or M4's (or M14's, Thompsons, greaseguns, whatever's handy) to anyone who volunteers for the militia as a terrorist countermeasure.

I'd like to see that. Wouldn't many of us, though?

CJ

"Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night."....Thulsa Doom

If you could legally purchase a full auto M16/AR-15 type rifle, factory new, for the same price they sell to the government and to law enforcement, plus the background check, 200 dollar transfer tax, etc...would you do it?

CJ

YES!.......

But I voted "NOBODY should have a machine gun"....Because I don't have ONE!.... [>Q]

If I could legally own one here in NY there would be no place to shoot it. Hell the ranges here dont even allow rapid fire on semi auto. I think the novelty of being able to blast away ammo that fast would wear off raher quickly anyway just my .02

Originally Posted By NH2112:I second the idea about no taxes, and also say no background check. That IS what "no infringements" means, after all.

i dont want to start a flame war here, but how do you plan to keep violent felons and the insane from obtaining machine guns?

A) Keep them in prison. B) Keep them in asylums. Besides, it's already been shown time and time again that fully-automatic machineguns costing hundreds or thousands of dollars are not the criminals' choice of weapons. I highly doubt that doing away with the $200 tax and FBI background check will make all sorts of tight-fisted criminals decide to spend $1500 for a legal M16 instead of $200 for an Uzi from the Homeboy Shopping Club.

Also, my views on buying guns are very similar to my views on the death penalty - I'd rather see 100 criminals go free (be able to buy a gun legally) than see 1 innocent person executed (be denied the RKBA.)

What about CLEO sign-off? Many of us have no hope of ever being allowed to buy a machine gun, a muffler, a AOW, or a short barreled rifle without contributing a large sum of money to a local badged-thug's reelection campaign. As a friend found-out after talking to one local sheriff, class III sign-offs start at $1K. He was told it would cost more later if he was caught shooting it. After almost getting arrested at the local range (in Glen Springs, SC) for shooting an AR-15, I wouldn't want to try full-auto. That range has at least one LEO watching the shooters every single minute it is open. I guess they don't want to miss a single chance to harass a gun owner. That range is about a mile from my house and where I grew-up. It's hard to believe how much the world has changed since then.z

I will say that the idea of getting the LEO sign-off for certain types of transfers changed to 'Purchase will submit documentation to LEO who must accept it and may not prohibit it' is an idea whose time may soon come. It has been pitched to a sympathetic ear or two in Congress, and a bill may come of it.

A contribution to an election campaign to get a signoff? That's bribery, for sure. I'm sure the state's law enforcement agency (FDLE) would LOVE to get their hands on a tape recording of such a transaction and put a sheriff in the pokey!

CJ

"Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night."....Thulsa Doom

For those of you that don't know, there is already a group out there taking the CLEO signoff requirement to court. Their latest appeal was just last Tuesday and it came out leaning in our favor with a decision expected in 3-5 months.

If you would like more info or would like to make a donation for the cause go to www.1934group.org/

A contribution to an election campaign to get a signoff? That's bribery

I've heard it many times before. In this state, most sheriff's offices won't even handout concealed carry applications or do fingerprinting for the applications. You think they care about a little thing like a donation that might be inappropriate?

Ponyboy, thanks for the link to 1934group.org. It's good to see some people are still fighting for rights. Some of the more interesting lines from the brief:

The fees paid on class III items are taxes, and requiring you give that information [in the form of a sign-off] to a state official violates tax privacy laws. In effect, the BATF "allow(s) local CLEOs to ban lawful firearms." "CLEOs have no legal duty to administer the NFA." "BATF regularly advises CLEOs that whether they should sign ATF Forms 1 and 4 is entirely discretionary even if the transfer or making of the firearm is lawful under federal, State, and local law." In other words, the transfer is completely legal, but the ATF makes sure they know they don't have to allow it. "The Police Chief of Arlington, Virginia, refuses to sign ATF Form 4 certificates for plaintiffs unless they waive their Fourth Amendment rights and permit police inspections of their homes." Wow, that's harsh. Of course, it's only the same requirements the BATF makes of FFL holders. "Congress did not empower to the Secretary to create anarchy in the administration of the Internal Revenue Code by granting carte blanch to every CLEO in the United States to decide how or even if the NFA would be administered." "A local or State CLEO is not an 'agency.'" "[A] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action . . . is entitled to judicial review thereof," and there is no judicial review of the CLEO's actions when they withhold. Finally, "the CLEO-certificate requirement is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law."

I hope they are successful. I'd love to be able to get a C&R FFL without having to send a copy of it to my local sheriff and open myself up to harassment.z

Here's a thought......if this lawsuit as described on the 1934 group's website is successful, it would be a BIG gun in the armory for use in a later legal action against the 1986 ban on further manufacture and importation of civilian transferrable machineguns.

Here's my line of reasoning: The basis for the NFA and the method of regulation of machineguns is TAXATION. By law, taxes MUST be collected. The ban of 1986 directly prohibits the BATF from collecting that tax, though the law REQUIRES all due taxes to be paid. CONFLICT!!! You can't register and pay the tax if you want to, and that's not legal!

There is a clear Constitutional issue as well. As we all know "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If it's not possible to OBTAIN a firearm by legal means,I'd say that's an infringement. Yes, all existing pre-86 machineguns are grandfathered if they're registered, but stopping the supply of new ones is clearly an attempt to keep people from getting them, and that's an infringement.

Also, the NFA of 1934 specifically forbids gun registration. Yet, all registered transferrable machineguns are registered, and that's as plain as the nose on your face.

I don't claim to be the originator of any of these concepts, by the way. But I do think about the problem, and I think that a few good lawyers could put together a case that would strike down some of these laws forever. Havingthe 1934 group's case as a citable reference would add a lot of clout to the challenge, too,so hope and pray that it is decided favorably for us gun owners.

No CLEO should be allowed to keep us from having any firearm if our background check comes out clean, we have no significant criminal history, and we pay the fees and fill out all the right forms. It's not the CLEO's business. I think the case will decide that.

CJ

"Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they will learn why they fear the night."....Thulsa Doom

Actually I am currently considering buying a 4th M16 because changing uppers is just too much work. I do have to pay more than PD prices because they do not have to pay excise tax direct form manufacturer.